this_war_of_minefandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Character Reviews/@comment-35399065-20180907181210
@ Laveley I somewhat appreciate what you're saying---that we'll be doing our damndest to NOT use certain characters for certain tasks/roles, and thus shouldn't "penalize" them for being poor at those roles. But I disagree that we'll NEVER be using them in those weak capacities (***more on that below), and I also must admit to perceiving a bit of a mixed message in what you've written. At the end of your fourth paragraph you hint that Marko is the favorite of so many because not only is he one of the best scavengers, but he functions reasonably well in other roles as well. The considerations that make him a favorite and arguably one of the most useful characters are the considerations that I've attempted to account for in the system I laid out in the post you replied to. You say you don't like the idea of rating them based on their attributes, but then in your fifth paragraph you appear to be advocating a system of rating characters based on their capacity to fill each type of role. With a little difference in semantics, isn't that essentially what I've done almost exactly? I mean, their capacity to fill a certain role is INEXTRICABLY TIED TO their attributes (which I rated). The capacity to be a good scavenger, for example, it largely tied to their inventory size. So I'm not sure how much we're actually disagreeing. We even seem to be in NEAR-agreement that scavenging is arguably the most important role (in essence this is inventory size, which is why I've weighted it so heavily). You say Katia's trading prowess is a "game changer"; I've assessed her the highest possible marks in the "Special Skills" category (the only character to receive that), as well as gave her highest marks for the smaller categories of "Non-redundancy" and "Portability of late-game insert". Consequently, she had the third-highest overall rating (barely behind Boris and Marko), despite having a smaller inventory AND being a weak fighter and guard for the home. That seems like it's more or less adequately assessing value to her skill. I'm open to modestly re-tooling the scale/ceiling I've put on Special Skills and/or Non-Redundancy; but I don't think any drastic change is justified. ***re: It being "literally useless" to rate characters on their ability to perform tasks/roles you'd prefer to NOT have them do. Again, I disagree, and for two reasons: 1) the reason we'd prefer to NOT have certain characters performing certain roles/tasks is that they're not good at it......but if they WERE good at it, you WOULD be using them in those roles, and they would be that much more of a useful character for it (which is what I'm trying to assess in my ratings). For example, Bruno's a great character to have working around the house (cooking the meals, distilling your moonshine, making the meds); that's where his value shines. In many scenarios you'd have better options than him for the scavenging, though. However, suppose instead of 10, his inventory size was 13? You'd then, in many instances, ALSO be using him as your primary scavenger, and he'd be that much more useful to you as result. This would likely propel him into the perceived best/favorite character overall for many people, too. 2) Circumstances will at least occasionally persuade or even FORCE you to use characters for roles they're not well-suited to. Let's take Anton as an example: his inventory is just 8 and he's terrible at guarding the domecile. Ideally, we'd never use him for EITHER scavenging or guarding. But what if you're playing the Anton/Cveta scenario? In that circumstance, you'll be using him for one or both roles ON A REGULAR BASIS. Even in other circumstances, it may happen. Just recently I was playing a scenario with Emilia, Pavle, and Anton. Anton had been a late arrival and arrived sick. I had meds (pills), but I didn't want to use them on Anton because a) there's no guarantee that even with pills and rest (and keeping him warm/fed) that he'll improve by the following day (and anecdotally, I've found this especially true with Anton; not sure if that's part of his character programming, or if I've just had some bad luck, but he has been decidedly "non-hardy" for me). And b) I wanted to save my meds for trade with Matey the Garage, because he'll trade so favorably for meds (because he has the sick dad). So I just kept Anton warm/fed and let him rest big stretches of the day and sleep a bed overnight for a couple days, hoping he'd improve. And if not, I had the City Hospital to fall back on: if a character gets medical care from the nurse there, it's a near-guarantee that your character will return THAT VERY NEXT MORNING in an improved condition (and obviously we don't use any or our own med stock, and still get some scavenging done). So that's ultimately what transpired: I sent Anton to the hospital to get care from the nurse (he got home in the improved "Slightly Sick" condition), and I had him scavenge as much as he could carry as long as he was out. Or take Bruno as another example (as you'd stated it wouldn't make any difference even if his inventory were 0), as you'll never use him as a scavenger. But that's just not true, especially if we think outside the bounds of the offered scenarios. Suppose you're playing a scenario with Bruno alone? Or Bruno with only Anton or Cveta? You'll be sending Bruno out regularly. Or suppose your team is Bruno, Anton, and either Arica/Roman? You'll be leaving Arica/Roman to guard and sending Bruno out to scavenge most nights. Bruno's not a great guard for the home, either. But suppose a group like Bruno, Cveta, and any one of Katia/Zlata/Pavle/Marko/Boris? It's going to be Bruno you have guarding the house most nights. I'm sure we can imagine numerous other examples where it would be Bruno guarding (or scavenging) on at least a semi-regular basis. In short: the character's capacity to carry out the non-ideal roles ones they're not suited to still matter.